State officials will soon have the opportunity to put a stop to the scourge of red-light cameras in New Jersey. In the meantime, at least one critic of the cameras also wants to prevent other states from draining New Jerseyans' pockets with the same devices.

The cameras have been operating for several years in many New Jersey communities at selected, dangerous intersections as a supposed safety measure. But in reality the primary goal of the cameras is to generate more ticket revenue, thanks to the vigilance of the 24-hour automated eye.

Supporters of the cameras cite statistics showing a reduction in accidents at intersections under the camera surveillance, but critics offer different interpretations of the numbers that leave doubt as to the influence of the cameras. Results in other states have been decidedly mixed.

What has particularly irked many drivers, however, are tickets issued for widely accepted maneuvers like "rolling rights" when drivers make legal right-on-red turns, but without coming to a complete stop. The entire program has also been tainted by improperly calibrated lights that do not give drivers sufficient time to react to a yellow light, a scam that caused the temporary suspension of the program.

Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth, has long been the most vocal critic of the cameras, and he is ratcheting up the opposition with a bill that would order the Motor Vehicles Commission not to share identifying information with other states related to red-light camera citations. So, for instance, if a New Jersey driver is ticketed in another state, officials there would have a license-plate number, but would be unable to access information about the vehicle owner from the MVC in order to issue a violation.

That bill seems like a bit of a grandstand play, although it at least fits with O'Scanlon's distaste for the cameras; it would be wildly hypocritical for any state lawmakers to support O'Scanlon's proposal while also pushing for the continuation of New Jersey's own camera program.

That potential continuation is the bigger issue at hand. The state's pilot program for the cameras ends in December, and has to be renewed by legislators. Municipal leaders will be lobbying hard to keep the program going, especially in the dozens of communities already operating some of the cameras where officials have grown fond of the added revenue.

The system may indeed make the roads a bit safer; advocates insist that more dangerous, higher-speed right-angle crashes are certainly reduced to some degree by awareness of the cameras. But there are countless things that could be done to make roads a little safer that we don't need, nor want to do.

The cameras are most of all intended as a revenue producer, not a safety measure, despite the disingenuous rhetoric to the contrary. That alone should be sufficient reason to let the program expire.